Apr 16 2010
Evolution Denial – In Connecticut?
Mark Tangarone is a veteran teacher in the Talented and Gifted (TAG) program in Weston CT. He recently created some content for his class involving Darwin and Lincoln (both born on the same day), including Darwin’s early adventures where he started to piece together the evidence for evolution. The content was not approved by the administration on the grounds that “evolution was an inappropriate subject to be taught to intermediate school-aged students.”
I had to read through this article carefully to see what was gong on – anti-evolutionary sentiment in CT, my home state? I have lived here most of my life and, being an ardent critic of creationism and defender of science teaching in general and evolution in particular I have had an eye out for any hint of creationism in CT, and I have never seen it. The northeast is a hotbed of ghost hunters, but not creationists. Yes, they are around, but not in sufficient numbers to be a real nuisance.
It seems that the issue here is not teaching evolution per se, but at what age is it appropriate to teach evolution. I will acknowledge one basic premise of the administration – different ages and grade levels require different approaches to educational material. More controversial content should be reserved for the higher grade levels, while the lower grade levels should focus on widely accepted basic information. I would not try to tackle the history of the abortion debate in first grade social studies.
But I absolutely disagree with their application of this premise to the topic of evolution. Evolution is a widely accepted basic premise of biology, it should be taught right from the beginning of basic science classes – even in first grade. Young children can be taught the notion that all living things are related, and that living things have changed over the long history of life on earth. They already know that dinosaurs were around in the past, but not now – evolution is the explanation.
At least as it is being reported, the school administration is trying to portray the situation as a personal issue with a disgruntled teacher, but that seems like a diversion to me. Patricia Gay from the Weston Forum reports that Tangarone received e-mails (gotta love e-mails) explaining the rejection of his proposed content – they say it all:
“While evolution is a robust scientific theory, it is a philosophically unsatisfactory explanation for the diversity of life. I could anticipate that a number of our parents might object to this topic as part of a TAG project, and further, parents who would object if evolution was part of a presentation by a student to students who do not participate in the TAG program.”
He further stated, “Evolution touches on a core belief — Do we share common ancestry with other living organisms? What does it mean to be a human being? I don’t believe that this core belief is one in which you want to debate with children or their parents, and I know personally that I would be challenged in leading a 10-year-old through this sort of discussion while maintaining the appropriate sensitivity to a family’s religious beliefs or traditions.”
In conclusion, Dr. Ribbens said, “In short, evolution is a topic that is not age appropriate, is not part of our existing curriculum, is not part of the state frameworks at this point in a student’s education, nor a topic in which you have particular expertise. For all of these reasons, the TAG topics need to be altered this year to eliminate the teaching of Darwin’s work and the theory of evolution.”
A “philosophically unsatisfactory explanation for the diversity of life?” What the hell does that mean? Is it scientifically satisfactory? What, exactly, are its philosophical shortcomings? I am really not sure what Dr. Ribbens is trying to say there, but it sounds like he has some confused notions about evolution.
Even if we put that aside, his core point seems to be that teaching evolution might conflict with the religious beliefs of some students or their parents. So what? You know what is taught in science class – science. Not religion. Public schools need to be free to teach science, all of science, unfettered by the beliefs of some parents. The public schools cannot dance around the beliefs of every parent. Parents can teach their kids whatever they want at home. They can homeschool, or send them to private school. What Ribbens is doing is allowing a minority of parents (and this is even hypothetical – he is anticipating problems that haven’t happened yet) to hamstring the teaching of science to everyone. Hiding behind the “age appropriate” argument is disingenuous.
I do think that public schools should be careful to stick to scientific content in science class – separation of church of state works both ways, and by teaching science as science all complaints about beliefs can be reasonably dismissed. This does not mean avoiding science content that conflicts with anyone’s religious belief. It means teaching students what the methods of science are and what those methods say about the natural world. You can keep whatever metaphysical beliefs you wish – but in the science class, the process and findings of science are taught unapologetically and not watered down. Likewise students should be tested and graded on what they know, not what they “believe.”
Ribbens’ fears and approach are misplaced, and in my opinion he was wrong to cancel Tangarone’s proposed lessons on the basis he did. It seems that the TAG students missed out on a great lesson. There is a generally accepted solution to the problem that Ribbens feared – that which I outlined above. That is the basic approach – public schools teach science and stay out of faith or student’s personal beliefs. A public school principal should have a thorough understanding of this issue, and what Ribbens did seems like a rookie mistake.
33 Responses to “Evolution Denial – In Connecticut?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks for the article. I think you have discovered a somewhat common problem in our school system. I have a friend who teaches high school biology. I remember her rolling her eyes about evolution. She said something to the effect of. ‘Oh sure, we’re “allowed” to teach evolution, but it’s generally understood that if you arouse any protest from parents that you won’t be supported by the administrator and you may end up in a world of hurt.’ Also, that it’s not a great use of time to teach evolution. She has to tip toe around the topic so much that she undermines the effectiveness of the lesson.
I don’t believe I was ever taught evolution in school K-12 -seventies and early eighties. I took a good amount of life science and I don’t remember evolution from it. Dinosaurs and other animals, biological classification, anatomy, cells, basic genetics. Actually I can’t complain about what I did learn. It was all accurate (for the time), so that’s good.
Anyway, I learned evolution at home from my parents and books that we had. I think there was a fascinating Time Life Science Series.
Now, I think there is so much ‘teaching to the test’ if you want to see if evolution is being taught you have to look at your state standardize tests. If it’s not on there, it’s a good chance it’s not being taught.
If I really search for a bright side here, I could say as a forbidden topic maybe evolution will hold some allure for the young folks. Maybe the tag line should be “Be a rebel, learn evolution.”
I also read the original headline with skepticism. It seemed more likely to me that a teacher was quitting for some other reason and attempting to brand his boss as a creationist as a potshot on his way out than that there would actually be any kind of anti-evolution agenda in Connecticut.
After reading that letter though, I don’t know what else you can conclude. Apparently the administrator who wrote it thinks that evolution is some sort of dangerous subject that children shouldn’t learn until their parents have had opportunity after opportunity to tell them it’s not true. It seems to be a variant on the theme of labeling “evolutionism” as an ideology rather than a predominant scientific theory.
I find this troubling too. I have a somewhat different interpretation which relates to ways of knowing things. Science is all “bottom up”, that is individuals build up a scientific understanding from facts tied together with logic. Social and political power hierarchies are all “top down”, that is power comes from the top and is exercised on those below one in the hierarchy. Patriarchal religions such as the Abrahamic religions are “top down”. Truth is revealed by God to His Prophets and the wisdom and authority of God proceeds down though the hierarchy with children at the bottom.
In a top down hierarchy, the worse offense is insubordination, a deviation from “your place” in the social power structure. That is because people higher up in the power structure only have their position to maintain power. Gathering information from people lower in the power structure to use “against” those higher is something that cannot be tolerated because it threatens the power structure, even if it does produce better decisions. It especially cannot be tolerated when the superior is actually wrong. Then the superior loses face, loses the facade of authority that is their only source of authority.
In th bottom up hierarchy of science, the worst thing is to get your facts wrong, followed by getting your logic wrong. Checking your facts and logic with others is encouraged.
I think it is telling that the administrator used the example of his own incompetence in discussing evolution with a 10 year old as a reason why the experienced teacher was incapable of discussing evolution. That is pure projection on his part. I suspect that he was concerned that a 10 year old would be able to out-argue him as to the merits of evolution, but as an adult school administrator feels incapable of saying “I don’t know” when trying to do things outside his expertise, especially to a 10 year old. Admitting inferiority in any way is unacceptable in a top down hierarchy. It is the Emperor’s new clothes effect. In a top down hierarchy most of the authorities are not qualified but are in their position by virtue of moving up the hierarchy through social promotion.
I see this as a conflict not so much as one between evolution and creationism, but rather between a top-down power structure and a bottom-up power structure. To get good and creative scientists, children need to learn to figure things out for themselves from the bottom up. To get good followers you want children to learn to obey and believe what ever an authority figure tells them, even (especially) if it makes no sense.
There’s a creationist billboard somewhere along I-84 in Connecticut. (Eastbound, I think… Waterbury? Maybe Hartford? Can’t recall.) I know it doesn’t take much to put up a billboard, but there it is.
“Public schools should be careful to stick to scientific content in science class – separation of church of state works both ways, and by teaching science as science all complaints about beliefs can be reasonably dismissed. This does not mean avoiding science content that conflicts with anyone’s religious belief. It means teaching students what the methods of science are and what those methods say about the natural world.”
Well said.
Dr. Ribbens’ fears sound exactly as those who want schools in the West to accomodate the demands of certain strict islamic groups, the kind who don’t want human reproduction taught in biology class, or girls exempted from PE because they would have to wear “revealing” (or was they see as such) clothes…
I can’t believe it. And in my home state too. Maybe we should push for a law for churches, in order to maintain their tax exempt status, mandating equal time for evolution whenever they talk about creation in church or Sunday school.
Connecticut Principal: Gifted 10-year-olds Can’t Handle the Truth about Darwin…
Public school students should be taught science in their science classes. I think that’s particularly true in the case of gifted children, from whose ranks we can expect the next generation of scientists to emerge. So it’s troubling when a …
In a recent item on his Savage Love podcast, sex-advice columnist Dan Savage talked about the case of a Mississippi school district that cancelled a high school prom because a lesbian student had asked to bring her female date. Savage pointed out that the school district’s rationale for its action was that if they allowed the same-sex couple to attend the prom, people would become upset, and it would be a distraction from the school’s primary educational role.
While the cases aren’t exactly parallel, I see some similarities in Ribbens’ argument that science teachers need to avoid teaching evolution to younger children, because it might disturb some religious fundamentalist parents (and presumably, because disturbed fundamentalist parents might then get into a distraction-causing confrontation with school officials over the matter). Ribbens’ view seems to be that it’s better to offend parents who believe science should be taught in science classes, because those parents are less likely to create a distracting stink.
I don’t know that Ribbens followed that reasoning. But if he did, I think he’s probably right: Parents like me who believe science should be taught in science classes probably are more low-key, generally, than those in the religious fundamentalist camp who have been working to influence public school science curricula in recent years.
Dan Savage argued that people outraged at the prom-canceling Mississippi school district should make a big fuss about their decision, thereby educating the school district that they don’t get to sacrifice their gay/lesbian students’ rights as a way of avoiding controversy, because the act of doing so will itself be controversial.
I think the same reasoning might apply in this case.
A few minutes’ googling informed me that Ribbens currently works as principal for the Regional Center for the Arts, a part-time performing arts magnet school in Trumbull. I assume that means he’s no longer in charge of middle-schoolers’ science curriculum, which is certainly a good thing. But on the theory that he might be in a position to make science education decisions again someday, I’d suggest that some public contact from unhappy parents might be in order. If you agree, you can reach him at ribbensm@ces.k12.ct.us, or by phone at (203) 365-8851.
I am a resident of Weston CT and one of my children had Mark Tangarone as a teacher. My reaction to the original article was that, assuming the emails were quoted accurately, this was the opinion of a single middle school Principal. This particular administrator worked in the district for 4 years and left last year (I have no idea if he quit or was fired). No evidence is presented that any other school official, school board member, teacher, or parent, objected to the way evolution is taught in Weston.
The current Superintendent makes no comment on the teaching of evolution other than to say, “Weston schools routinely teach evolutionary concepts…” . He insists that Tangarone’s resignation has nothing to do with the teaching of evolution and cites several specific personnel issues.
It will be interesting to see how the town reacts to this matter. This is not a town with any significant fundamentalist presence. 79% of the population are college graduates. 33% have post graduate degrees.
As far as the issue of how much evolutionary theory is taught at what age, I agree with Steve that it is never too early to start building a foundation for one of the most important principles in science. That said, I have no reason to believe the Weston curriculum is out of line with state standards.
Based on the available evidence, it is misleading to imply that anti-evolutionary sentiment extends beyond one individual ex-Principal.
I also had an issue with teaching evolution to sixth graders in Michigan a few years ago. I was a new teacher so I acquiesced, but I didn’t stay at that school long.
One major reason that many kids are not interested in science or school is that, especially in the younger grades, the teachers/ curriculum stick to basic facts rather than exploring interesting controversies and cutting edge ideas. You’ll see it more in the TAG programs, but any level student is capable of more than a list of facts. The kids know busy work when they see it too.
Watch out, biology! Daedalus2u is coming to set a couple things straight. Remember, if even a child can tell you that a theory makes no sense, that’s a big warning sign.
Like with quantum mechanics, for instance. Makes no sense, period. How could it possibly be true?
(I would say that when you read enough about it, evolution makes a great deal of sense, so teaching it to youngsters is perfectly reasonable. Might want to hold off on the quantum, though
Daedalus2u, I’m pretty sure you very much misinterpreted the word I bolded in this quote:
“I know personally that I would be challenged in leading a 10-year-old through this sort of discussion while maintaining the appropriate sensitivity to a family’s religious beliefs or traditions.”
I am 95% sure Dr. Ribbens does not mean he would be intellectually, academically or rhetorically challenged, but diplomatically. For him, it would be “challenging” to present the science in a way that is “sensitive” to religion. It has nothing to do with fears of a 10-year-old asking “Why are there still monkeys?” and having no adequate scientific response.
The only reason I can think of for not introducing evolution to first-graders is that they haven’t necessarily been told precisely where babies come from, and the two are closely related. But even if we want to hold off on sex education, there are plenty of ways to discuss the theory in general terms that don’t require anything not-G-rated. Kids already know that chickens come from chicken eggs; how cool is it to discover that those chickens descend from different-looking birds, who in turn descend from dinosaurs. So awesome.
Unless one is inquiring strictly as to the species, “What does it mean to be a human being?” is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question; perhaps a religious question.
A variety of people of different persuasions have given different answers to this question, and this is something that should be discussed as a part of the educational process (though I doubt that much headway could be made with 10 year olds). Preferably, of course, in a philosophy class.
Some feel, for example, that human newborns who have certain very serious brain deficiencies are not “really” human, or at least should not be accorded human rights. Others believe the contrary. Some think that we have some responsibilities to the rest of creation on account of our perhaps superior intelligence; others feel that we do not, that we are entitled to loot the place. Some people would drag God or gods into this discussion, with a variety of results.
That we are here, and that we bear certain physical relationships with other life forms, sometimes quite close relationships, these are proper questions for a science class. But I don’t remember any of my biology teachers straying into “meaning of our lives” discussions.
Lenoxus, did you read the linked-to article? Mark Ribben’s undergraduate degree is in music education and appreciation, his Ed.D. is in education administration.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-ribbens/15/370/8b4
From Mark Ribben’s statement that evolution is a philosophically unsatisfactory explanation, he clearly doesn’t understand either evolution or philosophy, and from his actions, he doesn’t want children being taught something that he doesn’t understand. When he says he would be challenged to lead a discussion I take him at his word.
Mark Ribbens doesn’t have the credentials necessary to teach science and social studies to this age group. Mr. Tangarone does; “He said he does have the necessary background to teach the program as he is certified to teach science and social studies for grades K-6. He also has a six-year degree in gifted education.
Being certified to teach both science and social studies means that he does have the expertise to be sensitive in teaching evolution. He also demonstrated the ability to reach out to other teachers and other resources to supplement his own expertise. Actions that were punished. Why were those actions punished? Not because they adversely affected teaching, because they didn’t. The actions threatened the power structure of the school administrators. No amount of teaching experience or expertise makes that acceptable to those in the power structure.
Mr. Tangarone teaches 3rd, 4th and 5th grade students. Ten year olds are likely in 5th grade. Ten year olds certainly should know where babies come from, some of them have already gone through puberty.
Not to nit-pick Steve, but I think an asteroid is the reason the dino’s arent around any more, not evolution… I’d hate for Egnor or someone to cherry pick that quote out of this entry and slam you for it.
Let’s just be clear. When Ribbens says:
“While evolution is a robust scientific theory, it is a philosophically unsatisfactory explanation for the diversity of life. ”
he is actually saying:
“My religious creationist beliefs are incompatible with the science of natural evolution, so I don’t want evolution taught on my watch.”
Let’s not pull punches here. I have no doubt Ribbens understands enough about evolution to know that it leaves very little room for divine magic. Parents will come to him and say “evolution goes against God”, and Ribbens doesn’t want to be in a position of arguing against parents he agrees with.
It is completely wrong to suggest Ribbens did this out of ignorance. He is trained in education administration, and Connecticut science standards include evolution. ‘Nuff said.
Ribbens used his own beliefs to filter the curriculum, and now his employers are going to get a LOT of letters. We’ll see whether the majority are for or against his actions.
Lonnie – the environment changed. Under the new conditions, the dinosaurs weren’t fit enough to continue reproducing, but other species were.
Sounds like evolution to me.
“I also had an issue with teaching evolution to sixth graders in Michigan a few years ago. I was a new teacher so I acquiesced, but I didn’t stay at that school long.”
Which is the sad thing, this discourages the best science teachers from staying in one place and gaining seniority/tenure. Also it could discourage some good science teachers from even staying in the field. (I am only guessing there.) Not a good thing for science education in general.
It is absurd that those who object to teaching evolution find it perfectly ok to teach about dinosaurs, the very existance of which completely undermines most of the creationist arguments, most prominently that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
I think an investigation into the school board itself would be most revealing. If the greater portion of board members hail from a religious background, that would speak volumes about political pressures within the system. In these trying times, having a stable job is a precious commodity, and it wouldn’t be suprising if school administrators were unwilling to endanger their jobs regardless of their personal stance on evolution.
I also want to mention that I learned about evolution in 4th grade watching the Voyage of the Mimi (on laserdisc, starring young Ben Affleck), and that was in Texas!
Of course, I specifically remember my teacher afterward saying it was “just a theory” and not known for sure.
“While evolution is a robust scientific theory, it is a philosophically unsatisfactory explanation for the diversity of life.”
What’s up with that? I disagree! What’s a better explanation? Some old white guy with a beard and a staff made everything. Oh that’s really satisfying.
I dare say that Mr. Lincoln’s views on what constituted appropriate powers of the federal government was and is philosophically unsatisfactory to many folks. Maybe the school should drop the Lincoln thing also, wouldn’t want to offend those who value state’s rights.
I’m so glad there are smarty pants like Steve who can reason with these folks.
How pathetically condescending and insulting to all 10 year olds, seems she doesn’t think much of her TAG students to use them to cover up her own abuses of authority in the name of religion.
“The northeast is a hotbed of ghost hunters, but not creationists. Yes, they are around, but not in sufficient numbers to be a real nuisance.”
Like Bigfoot then.
I would like to point out with pride that in my Jewish private school, we first discussed evolution in the 6h grade. It was in super detail and did not talk much about human origins, but introduced the concepts of survival of the fittest and that lamarckian evolution was shown to be wrong. I remember thinking at the time that the concept was just so logical there was just no way it could be wrong. Admittedly though, I went to a more liberal Jewish school than most.
weing:
Absolutely not! If we do that, they have won, because we will have reduced evolution to a matter of politics and ideology. Which is what they already think it is. It’s not. It’s *science* and we must be absolutely clear and consistent on that point. Religious opposition to evolution is *irrelevant*, or should be, if we’re teaching science as science.
Sinking to their level doesn’t solve the problem.
I know you’re not being entirely serious, but even made in jest, this is a dangerous idea. Evolution is science. If politicians mandate it must be taught in churches, then we are politicizing not only science but religion as well, and that always ends badly for everyone involved. It certainly won’t end well for science, because religion frankly has a better track record when it comes to courting voters.
The worst part about this is that these kids are of the age where you are dying to know how the world works. I distinctly remembering being that age and just being completely frustrated by not being able to figure it all out. My parents weren’t too educated so all I really had was the blanket ‘God did it’ which honestly creates more questions than answers any. But then in science class we were taught about evolution and it really was like finding a missing puzzle piece. It all finally began to make sense. The theory of evolution became a huge tool in understanding almost everything that I began to encounter.
Yet, once again, it is being denied to kids because the parents are scared. If any one like those parents read this blog than you people are ridiculous. Seriously. You’re literally afraid of a fact. It’s like being afraid of the weather report turning your child into a cult member. Your god will still exist once you or your kids learn about evolution. The only person that can make it go away from inside your brain is yourself. You have nothing to fear from science, trust me.
Calli,
Yes it was partly in jest. My point was that this would be viewed as a violation of the separation of church and state. Just like this decision is such a violation, at least in my view. It works both ways.
As a graduate of the Weston school system (Class of ’06) I think I can shed some more light on this story. In short, rest easy–evolution is not under attack in Weston. I don’t think that anti-evolutionary sentiments are the real issue here: Mark Tangarone is a fairly controversial figure in the school system. I suspect that the administration is merely using a touchy-feely stance on the highly political subject of evolution in order to provoke his resignation.
1. Tangarone is known to me as being a controversial figure. When I was in elementary/middle school (~’96-98) Tangarone got burned for telling his Talanted and Gifted (TAG) students that they were “the elite.” This caused outrage among parents of both non-TAG and TAG students alike, causing some kids to drop the program. From reading the Weston Forum article, it sounds like he has had trouble passing curricula on different subjects in the past too.
2. The administration dislikes Tangarone. a) Aside from the concerns about evolution itself, the school principal who initially denied the TAG curriculum (he has resigned since then, by the way) cited that evolution is not “a topic in which [Tangarone has] particular expertise.” Tangarone claims this is false–he claims to be “certified to teach science and social studies for grades K-6.” Why would the principal say Tangarone is unqualified when he is qualified? Sounds fishy to me.
b) The assistant superintendent made things personal when he rejected Tangarone’s appeal: “Tom Scarice said ‘Give it up, Mark!’ [Tangarone] was also reprimanded and fined a day’s salary for sending the e-mail to the other teachers.” The current superintendent added his own anti-Tangarone flak to the mix with these comments: “He called Mr. Tangarone a “disgruntled employee” who was “unhappy with being supervised.””
3. Weston teaches evolution completely and without any creationist apologies. a) This particular censorship of evolution is inconsistent with Weston’s existing science curricula. “According to Weston curriculum instructional leaders John Drummond and Carolyn Vinton, Weston schools address evolution in a “developmentally appropriate manner” in kindergarten, and grades three, eight, nine and 10.” Having completed my entire K12 education in Weston, I can verify that this is the case. Given that evolution is taught throughout the K12 years, I don’t see what the problem is with teaching it to 3rd-5th grade TAG kids, who are supposed to be brighter than average (or at least willing to do extra work.)
b) My high school biology teacher was openly anti-Creationist and didn’t suffer for it. I remember vividly on the day we started evolution, she said “So, are there any creationists in here? If so…automatic F!” The whole class cracked up. I didn’t notice a change in her attitude or disposition after that incident or for the rest of the year, and more importantly she remained at the school after I graduated 2 years later. So either there was no outcry from parents, or any outcry was minimal and dealt with in a reasonable manner.
Conclusion: The administration’s anti-evolution concerns on the subject of Tangarone’s curriculum don’t fit with either the presence of evolution throughout the K12 curricula or with the administration’s apparent tolerance of anti-Creationism speech in the classroom–something is missing from the equation. I think the fact that Tangarone is controversial and causes trouble for the administration–complaints from parents, curriculum bureaucracy, and apparent insubordination–fills this gap and gives the administration a motivation to want him gone. Thus, I think opposing his evolution curriculum was merely a convenient medium with which to outrage Tangarone to the point he would leave the school.
Steve, thank you for bringing this to my attention (I don’t get much news about back home when I’m off at college,) and I hope you’ll reproduce my comment in a post clearing Weston’s name of any association with anti-evolutionary thinking. The real culprits here are the administrators who rejected a valid curriculum to stick it to a teacher they don’t like.
Mr_eX, so you’re saying Dr. Ribbens did NOT write: “While evolution is a robust scientific theory, it is a philosophically unsatisfactory explanation for the diversity of life. I could anticipate that a number of our parents might object to this topic as part of a TAG project, and further, parents who would object if evolution was part of a presentation by a student to students who do not participate in the TAG program.”?
That wasn’t in an email from the administration? The administration did not say evolution is “philosophically unsatisfactory explanation for the diversity of life”?
You’re saying Mark Ribbens DIDN’T in fact remove Darwin from the lesson?
If Dr. Ribbens DID write that, and if he DID remove Darwin, then I don’t think your information on the relationship with Mr. Tangarone matters one iota.
If the quotes are accurate, the facts are clear. Dr. Ribbens crossed a line. He filtered the science curriculum inappropriately based on his view of the religious beliefs of a subset of the community.
“If Dr. Ribbens DID write that, and if he DID remove Darwin, then I don’t think your information on the relationship with Mr. Tangarone matters one iota. ”
‘Cept Dr. Ribbens only rejected a proposed curriculum by Mr. Tangarone; Dr. Ribbens did not changed the school curriculum which reportedly includes evolutionary concepts.The proposed curriculum would have included detailed information about Darwin’s voyage. Sure, the reason for the rejection is a bit wanky.
No one is denying evolution here, just a proposed curriculum. I think it’s plausible that if the administration wanted to give Tangarone the shaft, they would play hardball with him, any way they could.
Not teaching kids about Darwin does not equal not teaching evolution. In fact, much of the ideas proposed by Darwin have been corrected or revised. It’s like teaching kids the Bohr atomic model. For the most part, it’s blatantly incorrect but conceptually easy to understand. The Bohr model and it’s history just isn’t necessary to understand contemporary atomic theories. And neither is the history of Charles Darwin necessary to understand evolution.
I don’t know, Steve, I have no problem mentioning what the Bible isn’t while telling what science is. What does one do when a student begins to affect the outcome of a whole activity based on his Sunday school “learning?” In two classes, for the first time in 20 years, I had to literally tell students to keep it scientific as they began to alter their geologic timeline (before calculating event scale positions). I don’t think I’ll go as far as PZed in openly blasting creationism, but I will deal with it when it comes up.
Rick,
That statement by Ribbens was merely a tool to give Tangarone the shaft. Darwin/evolution did not get removed from any existing curricula.
weing:
I definitely agree about that.
One can teach religious views in a public school — but the absolute worst place to do so is in a science classroom. (Well, okay, a math classroom would be pretty bad too.) History is a good place, as religion was responsible for quite a bit of it. Sociology is another. Mythology’s another. And some schools even offer Comparative Religion. And then there’s my personal favorite, literature. But science….. Worst possible place. (Okay, maybe teaching it in health class would be worse.)
It cannot be said enough that teaching Creationism in science curriculum violates the religious rights of students, and therefore the Constitutionally-protected right to freedom of religion. It is not possible to avoid offending all religions; therefore, the only sensible course is to teach from a secular standpoint, as any quibbles a religion will have with that would be quibbles they’d have with society as a whole, and that’s something they’re going to have to learn to live with anyway.
The administrator who withheld evolution from the curriculum has apologized (sort of):
http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/thewestonforum/news/local/56145-evolution-flap-ribbens-apologizes-weston-parents-have-questions.html
But the local parents want more from the school board:
http://www.parentsforpubliceducation.com/
It seems that, according to the parents in the district, whatever problems the administration have with Mr. Tangarone, he’s a very good teacher.